تأثیر یادگیری مشارکتی همیاردبیر و خودارزیابی بر انگیزش خود و عملکرد تحصیلی دانش آموزان سوم دبیرستانی با رویکرد مدل جیگساو

محورهای موضوعی : آموزش و پرورش

ایوب گرشاسبی ¹ (دانشجوی دکتری برنامه ریزی درسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران)
کورش فتحی واجارگاه ² (استاد دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران)
محبوبه عارفی ³ (استاد دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران)

تاریخ دریافت : 1392/08/29 تاریخ پذیرش : 1397/11/27 تاریخ انتشار : 1398/03/01

کلید واژه: &quot, یادگیری مشارکتی&quot, , &quot, همیار دبیر&quot, , &quot, انگیزش خود&quot, ,

چکیده مقاله :

این پژوهش با هدف بررسی تأثیر یادگیری مشارکتی همیار دبیر و خودارزیابی دانش آموزان بر «انگیزش خود» و پیشرفت تحصیلی در سطوح بالای یادگیری دانش آموزان انجام شد. روش پژوهش شبه آزمایشی بوده و عمل آموزشی در دو گروه آزمایش اجرا شد، روش تدریس یادگیری مشارکتی همیار دبیر در یک گروه و در گروه دیگر همین روش به همراه خودارزیابی دانش آموزان به مدت هشت جلسه 90 دقیقه ای به کار گرفته شد. جامعه آماری کلیه دانش آموزان پسر سال سوم دوره متوسطه نظری شهر بیرجند و نمونه پژوهش شامل 54 نفر به صورت 3 گروه 18 نفری (دوگروه آزمایش و یک گروه کنترل) بود. نمونه در دسترس و ابزار پژوهش بخشی از پرسشنامه راهبردهای یادگیری خودانگیخته (MSLQ) پینتریچ و دی گروت به علاوه یک آزمون پیشرفت تحصیلی هندسه محقق ساخته برای سنجش سطوح پایین و بالای حیطه شناختی بوده است. از آزمون تحلیل واریانس یک راهه و آزمون تعقیبی توکی برای بررسی داده های آزمون انگیزش خود استفاده شده است. برای تحلیل داده های حاصل از آزمون پیشرفت تحصیلی از آزمون تحلیل واریانس مختلط استفاده شده است. عمده ترین یافته های پژوهش حاکی از آن است که «یادگیری مشارکتی و خودارزیابی» درارتقاء «انگیزش خود» دانش آموزان در درس هندسه تأثیر دارد. همچنین«یادگیری مشارکتی و خودارزیابی» بر مؤلفه های انگیزش خود یا همان «باورهای انگیزشی» تأثیر و تفاوت معناداری را در گروه ها نشان داد. علاوه بر این، الگوی یادگیری مشارکتی همیار دبیر و خودارزیابی هم در سطوح بالای یادگیری و هم در سطوح پایین یادگیری دانش آموزان در حیطه ی شناختی تأثیر مثبتی داشت.

چکیده انگلیسی:

This study is done to consider the effects of cooperative learning (Hamyar) and self-assessment of student on "self motivation" and the achievement of high levels of student learning. The research methods were Quasi-experimental and the training was conducted in two groups. Methods of teaching were collaborative learning (Jigsaw and Hamyar) and in the other were used the same way with self-assessment for 8 sessions of 90 minutes. Statistical society was all boy students in third year high schools of the Birjand. Sample of this study consist 54 students in 3 groups (the experimental groups and one control group). Sample of research was the available. The research tool has been spontaneous learning strategies questionnaire (MSLQ) of Pintrich & Grout. In addition the other was a geometry achievement test to measure the high and low levels of cognitive domain. One-way ANOVA test and Tukey post hoc test is used to examine their motivation test data. For analyzing achievement test data was used the mixed analysis of variance test. The main findings indicate that "collaborative learning and self-assessment" has an impact on enhancing "self motivation" of students in course of Geometry. The "collaborative learning and self-assessment" showed a significant difference in the groups about their motivational beliefs. Moreover, the pattern of cooperative learning and self-assessment has had a positive impact in high levels learning and at low levels student learning in the cognitive domain

منابع و مأخذ:

• Ali-Ismaili. A. (2006). Compare the effectiveness of traditional teaching methods and collaborative teaching at composition courses tips. M.S Thesis. Unpublished.Islamic Azad University of Roodehen(In Persian)


• Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in theclassroom: Student learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267


• Ayoubi, Z. (1998). Comparison of traditional and cooperative learning on the academic achievement and self-esteem of students in third grade school district 10 of Tehran. M.S Thesis. Unpublished. Goverment Management Training Center of Khorasan. .(In Persian)


• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Precentic Hall.


• Bandura, A. (2000) "Cultivate self–efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness". Handbook of principles of organization behavior.oxford,uk: Blachwell.pp.120-139


• Behrangi, M. and Aghayari, T. (2004); “Development of Collaborative Teaching Jigsaw In Traditional Teaching of Fifth Grade Students”; Educational Innovations, Vol. 3, No. 10(In Persian).


• Behrangi,M and Karimi,N.( 2014).A Survey on the Problems of Teaching the Book “World Art History” and the Effect of the Seven-Step Teaching Model of Managing Education from the Point of View of the Course Teachers. Quarterly Journal of New Approaches in Educational,4(14)1-28. (In Persian).


• Berry, C.A. (1992). Previous learning experiences strategy belifes and task definition in self-regulated foreign language learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 318-336.


• Brahmer, K.  Harmatys, J. (2009). Inceasing student effort in complex problem solving through cooperative learning and self-recording strategies. M.S Thesis. Saint Xavier University .Chicago, IL.


• Cooper, J. (1995).Ten reason college administrators should support   cooperative- Learning and college teaching, Newsletter, 6(1).


• Effandi, Z. Chin, L. Daud, M (2010). The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students' Mathematics Achievement and Attitude towards Mathematics. Journal of Social Sciences, 6. 272-275.


• Ellis, S. & Whalen S.F (2000). Cooperative learning: (Rastgar.T & Malekan.M).Tehran: Nay Publishing.(In Persian)


• Gillespie, D. S, & Thomas, E. (2006). Grouped Out? Undergraduate’s Default Strategies for Participating in Multiple Small Groups. The journal of General Education, 55(2,81-102).S


• Gokal, A. (1995). Cooperative learning. Collabrative Learning Education.Vol.7, No.1.


• Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D., & Schroeder, H. (1961). Conceptual systems and personality organization. New York: Wiley.


• Johnson. D. W. & Johnson. R. T. (1996). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs in elementary and secondary schools: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research. 66(4).


• Johnson. D. W. & Johnson. R. T. & Stanne. M. B (2000). Cooprative learning method: A meta-analysis. University of Minnesota.


• Joyce, B., Weil, M., Calhoun, E (2005): Models of teaching 2004:7th ed. (Behrangi.M.R). Tehran: Kamale Tarbiat Publishing. (In Persian).


• Kareshki, H. (2002). Efficacy of metacognitive strategies on the comprehension of the students. Tehran: Journal of Psychology. 6(21). 63-84(In Persian)


• Kanani, Sh. (1999.) The effect of participatory teaching methods and lectures on the academic achievement of first grade students in the high school geometry course. M.S Thesis. Unpublished. Allameh Tabataba'i University. (In Persian).


• Keramati, M. R. (2003). Cooprative Learning: 1th ed. Mashhad: Fara Angizesh Publishing. (In Persian).


• Keramati, M. R. (2007). The Effect of Cooperative Learning on academic achievement of mathematics andsocial skills. Journal Of Psychology and Education ofUniversity of Tehran, 37(1), 39-56(In Persian).

 

• Mobini, R. (1998). Comparison of cooperative learning with individualized instruction on the academic achievement of English classes.  M.S Thesis. Unpublished. Allameh Tabataba'i University. (In Persian).


• Onwuegbuzie, A. (2001). Relationship between peer orientation and achievement cooperative learning-based research, Journal of Educational, 94. 50-62


• Pakizeh, A. (2000). The effects of cooperative learning on academic performance and self perception Islamic Azad University students. M.S Thesis. Unpublished. Allameh Tabataba'i University. (In Persian).


• Pan, Ch.Y.  Wu, H.Y. (2013). The Cooperative Learning Effects on English Reading Comprehension and Learning Motivation of EFL Freshmen. English Language Teaching, V 6. N 5. 13-15.


• Paris, S.G., & Oka, E.R (1986). Childrens reading strategies, metacognition, and motivation. Developmental Review, 6, 25-56.


• Pintrich, P.R., & DeGroot, E.V. (1990). Motivational andself-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.


• Pintrich, P.R., & Smith, D.A.F. & Garcia, T. & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq). Educational and Psychological Measurement.53. no.(3) 801-813.


• Ross, J.  Rolheiser, C. Hoaboam-Gray, A. (1998).Impact of self-evaluation training on mathematics achievement in cooperative learning environment. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 359-382.


• Saif, A.A. (2005) “Methods of educational mea­surement and evaluation: 11th ed”. Tehran: Doran Publishing.( In Persian)


• Seirafi, n. (1995). Effects of cooperative learning on student achievement.  M.S Thesis. Unpublished. Allameh Tabataba'i University. (In Persian)


• Slavin, R. (1984).Effect of cooperative learning,Educational Leadership.50.


• Slavin, R., Lake, C., Hanley, P. & Thurston, A. (2016). Experimental evaluations of


• elementary science programs: A best-evidence synthesis. Journal of Research in


• Science Teaching, 51, 870-901.


• Shabani, H. (2001). The Skills of education: Eleventh Ed.Tehran:  Samt Publishing. (In Persian)


• Tajrobekar, M. (2001).Study of individual and group strengthening on collaborative learning and academic achievement in English Language third Grade students in Kerman city. . M.S Thesis. Unpublished. Allameh Tabataba'i University(In Persian)..


• Tileston, D.W (2000).10 best Teaching practices Corwin press, A sage Publications company.U.S.A.


•  


• Wang, M. (2016). Effects of Cooperative Learning on Achievement Motivation of Female University Students. Asian Social Science, V 8, N 15. 108.


• Webb, M (1985). Student interaction and learning small group, New York.


• Whicher, K. m., Nunnery, J. A (1997).Cooperative in the classroom. Journal of Educational Research, V 91, N 6. 231-239.


• Zimmerman Mare. A, (1995) “psychological Empowerment: issues and illustrations”. American journal of community psychology. V 23, N5.581-599.